ArticleJournal of drug assessment2021
Vasoactive pharmacologic therapy in cardiogenic shock: a critical review.
Article in Journal of drug assessment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vasoactive-Inotropic Score Reduction Rate Is Highly Associated With Prognosis for Critically Ill Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From the Real-World Dynamic Data.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2026Observational
- Cardiogenic shock: a review of contemporary approaches and ongoing challenges.Future cardiology · 2025Review
- Higher vasoactive usage despite hemodynamic goals is associated with higher mortality in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Revisiting nitrates use in pre-shock state of contemporary cardiogenic shock classification.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Inotropic support in cardiogenic shock: who leads the battle, milrinone or dobutamine?Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Review
- Early Levosimendan Administration Improved Weaning Success Rate in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Dopamine versus norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor in the treatment of cardiogenic shock.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) is an acute complex condition leading to morbidity and mortality. Vasoactive medications, such as vasopressors and inotropes are considered the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment of CS to improve end-organ perfusion by increasing cardiac output (CO) and blood pressure (BP), thus preventing multiorgan failure.
objectiveA critical review was conducted to analyze the currently available randomized studies of vasoactive agents in CS to determine the indications of each agent and to critically appraise the methodological quality of the studies.
methodsPubMed database search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on vasoactive therapy in CS. After study selection, the internal validity of the selected studies was critically appraised using the three-item Jadad scale.
resultsNine studies randomized 2388 patients with a mean age ranged between 62 and 69 years, were identified. Seven of studies investigated CS in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The studies evaluated the comparisons of norepinephrine (NE)
conclusionsThe evidence from the studies of vasoactive agents in CS carries uncertainties. The methodological quality between the studies is variable due to the inherent difficulties to conduct a study in CS. Vasopressors and inotropes continue to have a fundamental role given the lack of pharmacological alternatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.